Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to also speak on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2013. I would hope that we would all take it as read that, as senators in this place, we believe we should take a zero-tolerance approach to the issue of corruption. Certainly those of us on this side of the chamber believe we should be doing everything in our power to stamp out corruption in all its forms, and we should use the most effective means available to us in order to do so.

The bill which Senator Milne has brought to the Senate calls for the establishment of a National Integrity Commission to investigate and prevent misconduct and corruption in all Commonwealth departments and agencies, as well as federal parliamentarians and their staff, and investigate and prevent corruption across law enforcement agencies. The bill also proposes establishing an independent parliamentary adviser as a component of the National Integrity Commission to provide advice to parliamentarians on ethics, conduct and issues of propriety, although it is not proposed that this adviser have any investigative powers.

My own starting point when I hear about any proposal to establish a new body like this is to ask why we need to do it. Is there clear public demand? Does the creation of the new body fulfil a function that is currently being overlooked? Will the creation of the new body lead to different and better outcomes? It seems to me that the bill is going about things in very much the wrong way. It is looking to establish a new body, the National Integrity Commission, without really being clear about what we hope to achieve by doing so, because it is not clear, based on the evidence that I have seen, that doing this will result in better outcomes—in this case, reduced instances of corruption.

In some important respects, this bill strikes me as being very reminiscent of the modus operandi applied by the former Labor government—that is, it is creating a new, government funded body without really thinking about whether we need it. If there were some compelling evidence that our federal agencies were awash with corruption, then the case, of course, would be very, very different, but I do not think anyone is suggesting that. Accordingly, I do not think we need to be setting a precedent where we simply create a body for the sake of appearances and then only afterwards worry about whether there is any work for it to do.

As I said a moment ago, the federal government already has a very effective, well-established, multiagency approach to dealing with misconduct and corruption in Commonwealth agencies and departments. For instance, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is already responsible for detecting, preventing and investigating serious issues of corruption in federal law enforcement agencies. And of course we already have a parliamentary committee that is overseeing the work of that commission. Likewise, the Commonwealth Ombudsman performs an important function in investigating and auditing various agencies and functions, and the Australian Federal Police are playing their role in investigating and dealing with instances of corruption across Commonwealth agencies. Presumably the Greens, as the authors and sponsors of the bill, are not suggesting that these bodies are in any way deficient in fulfilling these functions.

Of course, I am not suggesting that the present arrangements have always been perfect. We can always do better in this area, and that is why the coalition government has taken a number of important decisions in this area since coming to office in September last year. That is why, in addition to the existing measure, the government has recently announced Task Force Pharos, which is designed to root out any corruption in the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. As we have seen in recent days, there is also the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, which was announced by the Prime Minister in February and is now underway.

It is curious that the Greens have come into the Senate with this bill on repeated occasions over the years and spoken about their deep concern about corruption. Would they not be publicly supportive, therefore, of a royal commission designed to deal with corruption in trade unions? It makes sense. If you keep coming to this parliament talking about corruption, why wouldn't you also come to this parliament and talk about corruption in our trade union movement?

The Abbott government, consistent with the commitment we made to the Australian people, decide to hold a royal commission into union corruption to deal with the numerous instances and concrete examples we have of the money of union members being misused by those in positions of authority, and what do the Australian Greens do? What do the Australian Greens say? The response of Senator Milne, the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate, is that the royal commission is 'an ideological witch-hunt'. The evidence is there for the world to see of corruption in some pockets of the Australian trade union movement, but the Australian Greens call a royal commission that is set up to expose that corruption 'an ideological witch-hunt'.

There are no expressions of concern from Senator Milne and her colleagues about the fact that people like the former member for Dobell and others in the Health Services Union were spending the union dues paid by low-paid health workers to fund their own nocturnal entertainment activities. There have been reports of thuggish behaviour, of kickbacks, of bribes—of what we would normally call corruption. But, bizarrely, the Australian Greens do not want to highlight any of this type or style of corruption. They do not want to hold these people to account. Investigating and exposing this sort of corruption is apparently 'a distraction', as Senator Milne has already said of the royal commission. Yet now the Greens come into this place, the Senate chamber, and try to pose as the heroes of an anticorruption movement.

I have read Senator Milne's second reading speech on the bill, and I could not find any clear evidence—allegations, of course, are not evidence—offered that our existing mechanisms for investigating and dealing with corruption are in any way inadequate. Because an inquiry does not get the response you wanted does not necessarily mean that the mechanism has failed.

The crux of Senator Milne's case seems to be that most states have dedicated anticorruption bodies; therefore, there should also be a federal one. Well, no. I think the bar needs to be set a little higher than that, especially in an environment where the government is committed to getting rid of duplication between the Commonwealth and the states. I know there is a long history to this bill. It goes back a couple of parliaments, when it was first pursued by former senator Bob Brown, the former Leader of the Australian Greens. But I do not think this is an area where a one-size-fits-all approach is going to bring about better outcomes.

Yes, the states have now established various forms of anticorruption commissions. Those states have made a decision, as individual jurisdictions, to deal with corruption as they see fit and in a manner that works best for them. That is federalism working at its finest. But no evidence has been offered by the proponents of this bill that changing our robust, multiagency approach at the federal level is going to achieve a better result. It is not enough to merely assert it; you actually need to provide the evidence. Being shocked about hearings at the New South Wales ICAC is not the same as having evidence about corruption across the Commonwealth.

As I have said, Australia should be proud of its record in dealing with corruption at a national level. We should also be proud of Australia's position and reputation. We are consistently ranked by Transparency International as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. It is interesting to note that many countries identified as some of the least corrupt in the world do not have national anticorruption commissions—including Canada and the United States. While it is true that, internationally, some countries have established national anticorruption commissions, many of those countries are developing or emerging economies fighting against endemic corruption. Established liberal democracies like Australia, Canada and the United States typically adopt a multiagency approach to the issue of erasing corruption.

We on the government side are committed to taking a zero tolerance approach to corruption and will continue to consider options for strengthening our nation's anticorruption framework, where it can be demonstrated that additional measures will lead to improved outcomes. However, just assuming that merely establishing a new national body is the best way to proceed, absent any real evidence of that, is an unwise basis on which to formulate public policy in this critical area.

It goes without saying that establishing a new body like this would also be a very expensive exercise. During the 2012-13 financial year, the cost of running Queensland's anticorruption body reached the $50 million mark. We on this side of the chamber accept that Australia is in a very difficult financial situation. It does not mean that we compromise issues of good governance, but it does mean we have to take a careful approach to building new agencies when there is no demonstrated evidence of a need. Senators from other parties are apparently unwilling to accept this important reality, but that is the fact of the matter at this point in time.

Given that, I am not sure taxpayers would thank us if we rushed to set up a new national anticorruption body, given that those who are seeking to do it have continued to fail, over many occasions now, to demonstrate that corruption is rife across our federal agencies. Nor have they explained how it is that a new anticorruption body will reduce corruption beyond what is already being achieved in the existing framework. This is a time for careful, prudent, evidence-based decision-making. It is not clear to me and it will not be clear to others what it is in this proposed legislation that will deliver a better outcome for our nation when it comes to erasing corruption.